I'm an engineer by trade and about 99% of what I do is solve problems. I try solve problems by first understanding them. I know what it's like to think you have the solution only to be way off when you test it.

Lemme ask you dis, what exactly is the "bandwagoneer" problem?

Describe to me what problem you are trying to solve and I'll see if I can help you out.

The bandwagoneer problem describes a situation where a member sees a comment with -5 votes, and thumbs that comment down just for the sake of being the one who hides that comment.

The idea behind limiting down-votes is that making down-votes scarce would reduce the chances of the above situation among those predisposed to down-vote others wantonly.

-Joe

But you missed the stalker. Basically, those who mod down others for the sake of harassment. There are plenty of examples, and many of us feel that we have our own set of them. But some of the best examples is that a number of users have had ALL OF THEIR posts down modded by a user. Joe could then ban then, but the troll comes back as a new user.

Now, it sounds like Randy has seen that some are ganging up to do the stalking.

This is interesting as well:if I disagree with everything someone says, (and once in a while this happens) I should be banned. Wow.

So, you take the time to go through somebody's past history and mod down each and every single post of the person as quickly as possible?

Nope. I read through the thread and make my decisions as I go. You think I should be banned if I happen to disagree with everything someone said? What if the person I'm TD-ingonly has a three posts, and I disagree with all of them? Should I be banned?

You're pretty much in the middle, BTW, I agree with a lot that you post. Not this though.

Nope. I read through the thread and make my decisions as I go. You think I should be banned if I happen to disagree with everything someone said? What if the person I'm TD-ingonly has a three posts, and I disagree with all of them? Should I be banned?

You're pretty much in the middle, BTW, I agree with a lot that you post. Not this though.

First, I am not a big believer in banning. It goes against my beliefs, but it also will not work. FAR FAR too easy to get around (anybody can come back here; heck, there is a real good chance that more than several of the votes here are from the same person; Until certificates are required, there will be ZERO way to get around such things). In this past election cycle, it was obvious to me that several of the ppl on this site were lobbyists for republican party. They were introducing things that LATER showed up in rush's and Fox's talking points (they both get their talking points from the republican party). Even in those cases, I do not believe that they should be banned. Heck, we have our own racists ppl here that I do not believe should be banned (or fired). Why? Because to be forewarned is to be forearmed. And knowing how these ppl operate is a forwarning (I never cared about la raza until I saw one posters sig as well as how a moderator operates; Now, I consider la raza to be a hispanic version of K^3; just as dangerous and as slimy).

Second, we are talking about 2 very different things.A stalker is somebody who is following others and simply modding them down. Several ppl have had all of their old posts modded down by these ppl. IOW, somebody went through another's post history and went right down the line and DTed them. All multiple 100's or even thousands. That is nothing but personal harassment.What you are talking about is reading somebodies posts, disagreeing with it, and DTing it. I have no issues about that.

Lastly, please consider trimming down your copied quotes. It adds lots of extraneous information that does not help the posts.

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

windbourne wrote:Lastly, please consider trimming down your copied quotes. It adds lots of extraneous information that does not help the posts.

I agree strongly with this statement. I typically do so, additionally so I can focus on the specific statement I am addressing. In doing so, a regular poster told me to post the entire post, because clipping parts off shows my bias. I told him I would do it the way I want to and he could do it his way.

*Edited to fix typo*

Democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority will always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury...followed by a dictatorship

windbourne wrote:First, I am not a big believer in banning. It goes against my beliefs, but it also will not work. FAR FAR too easy to get around (anybody can come back here; heck, there is a real good chance that more than several of the votes here are from the same person; Until certificates are required, there will be ZERO way to get around such things). In this past election cycle, it was obvious to me that several of the ppl on this site were lobbyists for republican party. They were introducing things that LATER showed up in rush's and Fox's talking points (they both get their talking points from the republican party). Even in those cases, I do not believe that they should be banned. Heck, we have our own racists ppl here that I do not believe should be banned (or fired). Why? Because to be forewarned is to be forearmed. And knowing how these ppl operate is a forwarning (I never cared about la raza until I saw one posters sig as well as how a moderator operates; Now, I consider la raza to be a hispanic version of K^3; just as dangerous and as slimy).

Second, we are talking about 2 very different things.A stalker is somebody who is following others and simply modding them down. Several ppl have had all of their old posts modded down by these ppl. IOW, somebody went through another's post history and went right down the line and DTed them. All multiple 100's or even thousands. That is nothing but personal harassment.What you are talking about is reading somebodies posts, disagreeing with it, and DTing it. I have no issues about that.

Lastly, please consider trimming down your copied quotes. It adds lots of extraneous information that does not help the posts.

I find myself in a unique position with this post of yours Windbourne. I totally agree with what I placed in bold in your first paragraph about banning people and I appreciate how clearly and succinctly you state your case.

I also see what you may have been pointing at with your examples listed in the first paragraph.

Where I feel differently about them than you seem to is, what makes the K-3 more dangerous and less equal to La Raza is the fact that the triple K were made up of 'white' men. That color differential makes a rank and privilege difference that seems so obvious to me I am surprised when people miss it or discount it. Imagine the additional rank that white males hold/held in the south have, legally, financially and politically... I have a hunch that anywhere a state senator lives here in Colorado, their streets get plowed in the Winter. That kind of thing...

I can agree that there are racist folks who wear very different levels of pigmentation in their skin. I also know that when I see or hear rage I look for deep pain/betrayal and loss. No matter what color the persons skin is...

Lumping people together as dangerous is a potentially useless generalization. There may have been decent men in the triple K for all I know. I couldn't have had dinner with them, but that doesn't make them slimy and dangerous either...

I do not understand. You indicated that "it's clear limiting thumbs-down isn't popular among many of the loyal members here", but you re-implemented it. You also implemented other tools to present obstacles to trolls, and "thumbers", but this 6+ thumb block is now in place. Your poll clearly showed our desires, you stated that you were not going to implement the block, but you did. What's up?

Democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority will always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury...followed by a dictatorship

As a board admin myself. In my opinion the thumb up/down should be capped or eliminated cause people do thumbs up/down for no good reason that I can see most times..

In 2008, ALL NINE justices of the Supreme Court agreed that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and that government may regulate guns. Read on it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I don't mean to speak for anyone, but I believe it means "in other words".

Democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority will always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury...followed by a dictatorship

DJA wrote:I do not understand. You indicated that "it's clear limiting thumbs-down isn't popular among many of the loyal members here", but you re-implemented it. You also implemented other tools to present obstacles to trolls, and "thumbers", but this 6+ thumb block is now in place. Your poll clearly showed our desires, you stated that you were not going to implement the block, but you did. What's up?

I don't understand either -- the thumb limit has been turned off. It was on for three days, and as of October 4 it is off.

DJA wrote:I do not understand. You indicated that "it's clear limiting thumbs-down isn't popular among many of the loyal members here", but you re-implemented it. You also implemented other tools to present obstacles to trolls, and "thumbers", but this 6+ thumb block is now in place. Your poll clearly showed our desires, you stated that you were not going to implement the block, but you did. What's up?

I don't understand either -- the thumb limit has been turned off. It was on for three days, and as of October 4 it is off.

Joe

That is real strange. I wrote this because 5 posts on page one of "A darker side of Columbus emerges in US classrooms" thread were blocked, three from Les F, one from Jbowen43, and one from BulletBob. Strangely, I go back to that thread and they are no longer blocked. If it was my error, my apologies.

Democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority will always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury...followed by a dictatorship